He received his Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana State University in 1973 and practiced law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for 26 years and currently lives in Dallas, Texas. He specialized in Constitutional law during his practice and handled cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.What, no love for the 3d, 7th, or the 8th amendments?Connelly's [/break1]jigsy.com/]blog.Some day I will create a moronic curriculum vitae and announce proudly that I practice Constitutional law, but only regarding penumbras and emanations.

One of our posters mentioned quite some time ago when the initial briefs were submitted, that Ragsdale and team appeared to have an underlying additional thrust towards avoiding giving any members of the court any potential encouragement to perhaps make some passing birther friendly comments.This bit caught my eye as somewhat less subtle than before in that respect..... It would obviously be improper in the context of this narrow legal issue for the Court to offer any opinion about President Obama's eligibilityThis is exactly the case. The amicus brief is intended to keep Justices Moore and Parker from saying something stupid even as they dismiss the case. What's really amusing is that the Motion To Strike has given the ADP an opportunity to reply and reinforce their main purpose. In the Reply they admit that the exhibits are not evidentiary, but rather "educational." But in pointing this out they are encouraging the Justices to take a peek at them, even if they aren't a part of the record.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" - Albert Einstein

IANAL (obviously), and I usually have very little to add to legal arguments (again, obviously), but even a legal neophyte such as myself can recognize a lawyer who knows what they're doing and one who doesn't (cough cough Taitz cough cough Klayman cough cough). I don't have to see either group in court (although it's apparent there, too. Also.). All I have to do is read any of the briefs that are submitted for the birther cases. You look at the rambling crap that Taitz or Jedi Pauly or whoever submit vs. this concise, well-written brief submitted by Ragsdale. Night and day. Heck, just having all the words spelled correctly lets me know it wasn't submitted by a birther.Slightly off-topic, and a slightly roundabout way of saying, "Well done, Mr. Ragsdale."NOTE: I have no idea if I spelled everyone's name correctly. Like Orly, I'm too busy to use the Google.

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?

Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?

Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.In a word: yup.

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?

Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.They wouldn't be birfers if their arguments were capable of surviving past the first sentence of their own briefs.

Why the draft font on page 6 of the USJF amicus brief? The whole thing seems to be a whine that Ms Bowen removed Peta Lindsay from the ballot because she was aware that she was 27, not 35. From that, they extrapolate that all Secretaries of State 'should' require each candidate to submit a birth certificate for their perusal. This would require a candidate to obtain some 50 certified copies of their birth certificate, one for each SoS, something that doesn't seem to have occurred to these idiots trying to push this additional responsibility onto each state's SoS. The amicus brief even accepts for a moment that it is in the nominating party's interest to check eligibility and only put forward an eligible candidate, but that is quickly glossed over with the absurd suggestion that a party might nominate a deceased person and the electorate (whom I assume the USJF think are both stupid and uninformed, despite the media) would vote for them, together with an insinuation that President Obama is "arguably ineligible". It doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls that should they have got their way, the President would have obtained 50 certified copies of his birth certificate from Hawai'i, and each SoS would have accepted it under full faith & credit. So they still wouldn't have got their desired result of removing President Obama for presidenting while black, but each candidate would have a large number of copies of an important identity document flying about, with the attendant risk to them of identity theft.

It doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls that should they have got their way, the President would have obtained 50 certified copies of his birth certificate from Hawai'i, and each SoS would have accepted it under full faith & credit. So they still wouldn't have got their desired result of removing President Obama for presidenting while black, but each candidate would have a large number of copies of an important identity document flying about, with the attendant risk to them of identity theft.And its proposed rule wouldn't apply to just Obama, or just POTUS candidates. Every candidate for every office would be required to submit proof of citizenship.

And now I've properly read their cite to Irby v Barrett, it's clear they've scuppered their entire argument by that inclusion. I was too busy looking at the fonts and wondering where the United States of TVmerica might be (on p6). Could the USJF be making a statement on the power of the media, or is it just that they are poor proofreaders?

I love footnote 4, which notes that much like a picture of a baby is not a "new version of the baby", a newly scanned photocopy of a document is not a new version of the document.A picture of a baby is a forgery of the baby. 'Course it's a new version of the baby. It's two-dimensional. It stays the same size for years, while the baby gets bigger. That's not a real baby. Take a different picture with different lighting, it's just a different forgery of the baby. It's "a new version of the baby" you can give to Aunt Ingrid but you get to keep the real baby. Problem is, it's perfeckly legal to forge a baby. People forge babies all the time. You can even make a forgery of a baby by putting together pieces of lots of other babies using Photoshop, and ... no crime.But if you forge a birth certificate and officially "show" it to the voters of this great nation in order to qualify for the presidency, then totally different story.

I find it most enjoyable that the birfers seem to think that they all have to jump into this particular case cuz Moore is on the bench.And if this happens, somebody get video of the twitter schmuck for me. pretty please.Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetails Reply Retweet FavoriteGreg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong Oh, I'm so sorry. You can't discredit the story so you discredit the source. Case IS going to be heard before Judge MooreDetails Reply Retweet Favorite

He received his Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana State University in 1973 and practiced law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for 26 years and currently lives in Dallas, Texas. He specialized in Constitutional law during his practice and handled cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.What, no love for the 3d, 7th, or the 8th amendments?Connelly's [/break1]jigsy.com/]blog.Some day I will create a moronic curriculum vitae and announce proudly that I practice Constitutional law, but only regarding penumbras and emanations.And preamblez, you gotta work on cases involving preamblez, them is the best parts of constitutions. But you gotta stipulate that you only recognize that one under glass in the national archives. All those other ones are copies. With layers.

I love footnote 4, which notes that much like a picture of a baby is not a "new version of the baby", a newly scanned photocopy of a document is not a new version of the document.A picture of a baby is a forgery of the baby. 'Course it's a new version of the baby. It's two-dimensional. It stays the same size for years, while the baby gets bigger. That's not a real baby. Take a different picture with different lighting, it's just a different forgery of the baby. It's "a new version of the baby" you can give to Aunt Ingrid but you get to keep the real baby. Problem is, it's perfeckly legal to forge a baby. People forge babies all the time. You can even make a forgery of a baby by putting together pieces of lots of other babies using Photoshop, and ... no crime.But if you forge a birth certificate and officially "show" it to the voters of this great nation in order to qualify for the presidency, then totally different story.And everyone knows, baby layers are indirect confirmation of fraud. And those coffee cups with baby pictures, those are just a slap in the face to baby patriots.

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetailsReplyRetweetFavoriteWhat a maroon. Even if, in the alternate universe of the SCOAL, they opined that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case, and remand (for whatever reason), that does not "declare Obama ineligible".

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetailsReplyRetweetFavoriteWhat a maroon. Even if, in the alternate universe of the SCOAL, they opined that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case, and remand (for whatever reason), that does not "declare Obama ineligible".What will "therightswrong" do when the State Supreme Court dismisses the case? GregWHoward was addressing his tweet to @therightswrong.we've talked about Greg Howard here awhile back. This is his twitter:[/break1]com/GregWHoward]https://twitter.com/GregWHowardPure nut.